Based on Coen’s description of climate science’s trajectory since the Enlightenment, I would say that the gap between climate knowledge and the actual nature of the climate has narrowed. This is epitomized by the fact that climate science would become more widely accepted. Coen’s description of weather measurements becoming standardized across the globe, climate scientists working with governments, the combining of physics and geography to produce meteorology, and the switch to understanding patterns in weather rather than recording events. This contrasts strongly with Janković’s account in his chapter on meteors, where bizarre weather phenomena were attributed to God and the secular understanding of events were largely dismissed. One continuity between the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment, however, was the utilization of climate knowledge for colonial ends. According to Coen, many climate scientists evaluated environmental conditions of various regions for governments in order to improve agriculture and trade. Given this anthropocentric precedent of producing climate knowledge for capitalist and extractivist means, this likely shaped what climate data is collected and how it is used today. There is still a great sense of anthropocentrism, for instance. The dominant discourse on climate change has been about biodiversity loss, but has now centered on how we will save ourselves from our actions. The human sciences, when understood through biology, economics and philology, reveal the limited scope of the human perspective. It helps to explain the way climate has at least for the West, been conceptualized and shaped around human needs.